CFF2 is released, has been for years. As far as I know there's no solid
convention for ignoring unrecognized operators in a CharString, so this
would be CFF2 minor 1 at best. Which would be years out in terms of
support.
Practically speaking I don't think this could wind up being a "this
glyph has overlap" flag, as in CFF2 overlap is valid anywhere. If
something were added it would be more like a "this glyph doesn't have
overlap, you can optimize the rendering" flag.
Behdad - there's no provision for a relevant flag in VARC currently,
correct? (I'm not sure there was one in the glyf-based system, as I
don't remember a place where the flag would have lived.)
Correct.
Skef
On 12/19/23 10:53, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
> Why? The sequence 0x0c 0x40 is reserved and not used for example.
>
>
>> I'm afraid the horse has left the barn as far as that goes.
>>
>> Skef
>>
>>> On 12/19/23 04:23, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
>>> I would suggest that CFF2 invent a special charstring to mark overlaps
>>> with FT_OUTLINE_OVERLAP only when necessary. Let us know to implement
>>> it in FreeType.